Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence

23 January 2006 More Evidence That Won't load last Diff(again)
I am again having this problem of the page not loading. Z.A. I think. anyway in the absence of being able to do so I place the diff here as lodged as Evidence, until I may be able to insert it. If I never do-perhaps an Arbitrator will see that iit is loaded for me. This:-

7 August 2005

 * 18.32


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XI&diff=20488467&oldid=20372898,[] Shows Wikipdia's own acceptance that Murder is involved in this over-all subject, if not "widely believed". I had nothing to do with this edit, and I place it here in response to the evidence presented here by Musical Linguist, which without this knowledge of Wikipedia and the World, may indeed persuade Arbitration that I am the paranoid schizo etc as called between User:Patsw and the rest of this Cabal. He has not presented evidence, but Musical linguist now has, and I have no more diffs to counter and position her more correctly into her cabal of revisionist fellows, but this makes her a party due for her own scrutiny. I ask you - is JKenny a party ? I could fill another hundred diffs. And as further below, the rumour is a Primary Source, a witness's memoir, insinuating the murder  was, even, effected  by Cardinal camerlengo Eugenio Pacelli himself. EffK

This is EffK Evidence diff number the first at top.

Important EffK diff Evidence Un-loaded, please substitute
EffK wishes to substitute his very last diff at the bottom of the several for = 15 December and substitute there for that last numbered diff, which is in any case a page and not a diff, therefore inadmissable, and rel=place it with this following diff.[Note, today the pages do load, and Fred helped out too. thanks 11:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)]:-

18 January 2005

 * 15.59

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=35685791&oldid=35685237,[], conclusive statement by Str1977 that he is actively guarding Wikipedia from source presented by EffK.


 * Guiding Message to achieve Inclusion made now to Arbitration Committee(only):-


 * I forget whether I am allowed to remove/substitute evidence but I wish to substitute this important admission, which elucidates my case. I am persistently trying to load the Evidence page with this, and I am un-able to do so. I think my browser cannot load the page, and I feel I should not be so prevented in finalising my Evidence by a weight of accusatory diffs weighing MY page. If I prove un-able to load this I request that the Arbitrators herewith accept this substitution , in the good faith that must be accorded me as a User, and ignore the diff, of mine, last by number c 184/whichever it is. I have brought this to the attention of Fred Bauder, and ask him to effect that substitution or bring this to your notice. Thankyou.EffK 18:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Effk reminds Arbitration that he requested Arbitration and still requests it please
I am nearly completely muzzled, and nearly speechless, after the latest and Centre Party Germany discussion harassment.

I understand exactly why the gist of a group of users is to obstruct all sourced truth from me, and note that concert for what it is. Indeed it serves more my qualification than its own purpose in this its denialism, which is un-tenable in the long run. This is not why I speak here.

I come here to say that the experience I have of Wikipedia is that however much it vaunts some clear and helpful community rules, its elected and appointed arbitrators do not take seriously a User's, Mine, request that arbitration be instigated for the central obstructive barrier against [my]sourced history, who is User:Str1977. I warned this User on his user-page, as decency required, and I requested User Robert McClenon on his page to submit the Request for Arbitration. I submitted directly to Arbitration a letter of request to do exactly this. I did and do not know technically how to do a firmer request, and requested this in good faith to be seen by this area of Wikipedia (Arbitration).

I only write to say that Arbitration itself was continuously requested by me on relevant disputed Artiles and then here at Arbitration Discussion  after 1 yr. continuous obstructionism by these two named Users. I alone in limited technical fashion, ie. on relevant talk pages, asked continuously for Arbitration for the intractable and personal dispute because I am the only sourceing counter-editor. I today, as through-out, protest what is at the least a 2-User cabal of wrong in pure WP terms of denial of source(McClenon and Str1977). These Users are joined with only 3 fellow sympathisers, all of whom are prepared to sunder the sources provided, by signing actions against me. I have to re-protest user:John Kenney, whose historical errors seem to have left him the grudge behaviour visible at Evidence for 11 December 2005. This minor assailant appears simply to wish to provoke me into wrong, such that he can then add his diff of a tiff. His actions are serious in respect of history, as is Str1977 continuous POV massage, and to an extent only predicated on his limited understanding, that of user Robert McClenon.

The other two users who have both attempted to bolster obstruction of me, do this at Request for comment, though one of them I called up for RC Chuch Sex Abuse whitewash, hardly remembering she was already an opponent to my awkward factual sourced presence.

I wish to bring yet again to the notice of the Arbitrators, that I wished for an arbitration, requested it under the Arbitration, was ignored by the Arbitrators, therefore that the case against me must please be followed OR now conjoined with another Arbitration as I through-out requested.

I am in no hurry to add to hard pressed arbitration work, and I have limited my Evidence to a minor part of the diffs possible. I would expect that this other/possibly general arbitration, would have to repeat all the current Evidence presented by me and by the other two users,Str1977 and Robert McClenon and that the logic therefore is to roll all the Arbitration from the same dispute, into one. Please consider the importance of history articles being correct or massaged, as I charge. Please take as seriously as it deserves the charge made against me in the present Arbitrataion, (that I promote a personal theory).

Thankyou. EffK 13:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

December 16 Abandonment
I recognise that I am completely muzzled. Whether Wikipedia recognises this thru Arbitration is not my concern. I refer you to my response of a few moments ago.EffK 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

11 Dec request to Sam Spade's Talkpage
Sam, I'm sorry to have to go against your earlier advice of not making life hard ar Arbcom-or avice that it wasnt a good moment. I did not persist with my request for Arb., after you so advised but McClenon did, but against me. I also did not lose my cool with Kenney, as you calmed me. I showed the POV there at Centre exactly as it is in one of two relevant sections. However the combination since that Kenney makes with McClenon is more than a contributor should have to bear, so I have repeated more formally, as formally as I am capable of, my call to Arbitrate Str1977 and what I qualify as "Revisionist Clerical Denialism in Wikipedia". As always you are the only Editor who has shown any continued good faith impartiality towards me, and I request you to be aware, if not assist, this current request. I repeat it at Arbcom discussion and on my Evidence Discussion. I feel let down by this community big-time, and I wish to give it the chance to hold to its noble values now through expansion of the Arb on me , or a subsequent over-lapping repeat Arbitration. If no one else will do it for me, I ask you to do so. I do not understand the instructions as to how it is listed. It is RCDinW as above stroke Str1977/Robert McClenon. You may imagine all the expletives you have never yet heard, the which I do not express in WP writing.

It was bound to be like this- and I only suggest you follow the import of the Fire Decree (Courts Decrees) and Enabling Act recent sourceing and pay particular attention to:* The continued contradiction between Papen's answer in the negative re:Deputy arrest, at Nuremberg (and WP suggestion of legality through suspension habeas corpus) : * The un-constitutionality of all Hindenberg Decrees under Article 48 per Rosenberg; *That there is one issue, the Fire, and that alone as an illegal Common-Plan or Conspiracy justifying the previous 6 March 1931 un-constitutiional Decree ; *Article/section 2 of the Enabling Act as sole constitutional reflection on WP relevant to sovereignty of reichstag deputies(as part of the Institution).

You will understand, and you will know that which is still required, and which I have been rquesting for some months : constitutional justification even under Armed Revolt Art.48 for Deputy arrests.

In so far as it would serve my purpose well I would accept a mentor, but, only if the opposite editors accept mentors. If, thereby, rules as to source are upheld, and harassment and provocation stop I would be happy. I ask you to answer this at Evidence for EffK/Discussion, if you need to at all. I place this comm. to you there as relevant Bye bye EffK 14:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your message
Hello, have we met before? You posted to my user talk page referring me here but nothing rings a bell. It's too bad you seem to be having difficulties. I wish you well. Durova 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.Answered to editor Dorova.EffK 10:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what your dispute is about, but per your advice I checked The Great Scandal. The problems I listed in last month's delete vote haven't been addressed.  I've nominated it for cleanup and listed my reasons on the talk page.  In a similar vein I left comments at Hitler's Pope.  I your situation works out.  Best wishes. Durova 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To write the word 'really' is to say fifty words in one. You must be ambarrassed, but I posted you because you wrote of the' gravity of the subject' before. It is perfectly clear what the dispute is about as a reading of the last linked edit on 15 removing the kick-back scheme makes plain. I know it takes effort to see the actual denialism referring to 19 July. You, as example, could finish the job, but then you would experience the same denialist interventions.

I know what you said back before, Durova, about 'clean-up' and understand what you say now., but none of that is the point. Te point is that certain editors refuse to allow any amplification/clarification of either of these two Articles, so to simply repeat the tag is to have missed the point, rather...

Following up with a word for the arbitrators
I hold a university degree in history. I also studied German history in some depth and can speak German. I find Effk's criticisms of both Hitler's Pope and The Great Scandal to be meritorious. Both articles deserve NPOV and Cleanup tags. The articles now have them.

The relevant issues are complex and weighty. Neither article attempts to do the subject justice. The net effect is to portray the Roman Catholic Church in an unduly positive light by stressing certain favorable actions, stressing rebuttals to some criticisms, and ignoring other criticisms.

Considering the importance of the topic, administrators may want to consider some alternative remedy. The ultimate goal is to offer good balanced articles to the public. Perhaps an article improvement drive would be appropriate after arbitration has closed. Durova 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Update
Effk has posted an RfC for several pages. It doesn't appear that my flags for cleanup or NPOV have improved either article. I really have no interest in the Effk arbitration nor do I understand much of it. I do have an interest in German history. Today I proposed a rename from The Great Scandal to The Great Scandal (Hitler) and a radical rewrite to bring it in line with the theory it is named after. This Wikipedia article has misrepresented its subject from start to finish. I will wait for other comments before proceeding. Durova 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Answering accusations made against me by EffK
EffK made accusations against me, trying to bring me into this case, at the Arbitration Committee talk page (as he was unable at the time to upload it to the evidence page), and then, successfully, at the evidence page.  I responded at the Arbitration Committee talk page  while he was uploading his accusations to the evidence page. I am now responding here, as it is in the form of a statement (although it includes evidence) rather than in the form required for the evidence page.

The diff that EffK supplies show that I made two additions to the evidence page of his RfAr. My edit summary says: ''Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)''

Occasionally a wikipedian, while making a post to a talk page, deletes something added by a previous contributor. The deleted post could be a personal attack, a rant, a strong piece of POV pushing, or a completely off-topic post. Such deletions are, in my opinion, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Such removals often cause offense.

It can also happen that someone edits a talk page, and as well as the addition he has made, there is a deletion of a previous post from another contributor, or even from more than one. This happens completely against the intention of the editor, and there is no "edit conflict" warning. Sometimes the posts that get deleted were made several hours before. I have no idea why this happens, but have sometimes seen people getting very indignant because they think that another editor deleted their post on purpose.

In adding a comment to a talk page, I recently wiped out the post of the previous editor. I don't know how it happened. Luckily, the editor who came after me assumed good faith and just restored it without comment. More recently, Str1977 accidentally wiped out two posts while making his own. When it was drawn to his attention, he apologized and restored them.

The edit history relevant to EffK's accusation against me will show the following diffs:


 * 10:49, 11 January 2006 Musical Linguist (Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.))


 * 10:35, 11 January 2006 Str1977 m


 * 10:18, 11 January 2006 EffK (→Evidence presented by EffK - Removal of Reichskonkordat)


 * 20:37, 10 January 2006 Robert McClenon (→03 January 2006)


 * 17:50, 10 January 2006 Str1977 (→Evidence presented by Str1977 from his confrontation with FK)

A very brief look will show immediately that Robert McClenon added the words: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia at 20:37 on 10 January; that EffK added evidence for 30 August 2005 at 10:18 on 11 January; that Str1977 added to his own 10 January 2006 evidence seventeen minutes later at 10:35; that the two previous edits got swallowed up at the same time; and that I restored those deleted edits at 10:49, with no additions of my own and with an edit summary commenting on the fact that they had probably been deleted through a software bug.

To reply to each of EffK's accusations:


 * 1) I did not use any administrator's powers in making that edit.
 * 2) My edit was made in good faith, as I was trying to undo the result of a software glitch, and was also trying to spare Str1977 a possible accusation of having wiped out the posts on purpose.
 * 3) I made no attempt to insert my own evidence, although to do so is not prohibited, and although I do have diffs that show EffK being less than civil to me, including one where, editing while not logged in, he seems to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power. I merely readded Robert McClenon's evidence and EffK's own evidence (which I think he should have noticed before making his latest accusation).
 * 4) There is nothing dishonest in my edit summary. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer and stated that I was restoring these two edits. But I assumed that it was sufficient, while reinserting them, simply to state that they had been deleted.
 * 5) I can't comment on the "cabal membership" statement, as I have no idea what he is talking about.
 * 6) I do not have a "propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK". I have never made any kind of attack on him; nor have I felt any wish to do so. I have reverted some of his editing, though not frequently; and, at a time when I was extremely busy with college work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to his concerns, possibly adding to his frustration, which I regret. I am not involved in this case, other than that I was a witness some months ago to the way he filled up the Benedict XVI talk page with several extremely long posts which had nothing to do with editing the article.

EffK, you have made utterly false accusations of abuse of administratorship and dishonest edit summary, among other things. You have also taken up over half an hour of my time in responding (and you may note from my user page and talk page that I am very busy at the moment and am trying to contribute less to Wikipedia until the end of the month). I will, nevertheless, accept your apology if you choose to make one, and continue to wish you well, regardless. AnnH (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Response from EffK to Answer: Yes indeed you should have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had. Your name was up as the editor of the diff .I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement. And,Yes you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church. And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in Ferns, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(as my POV/error) of the scandalous Irish government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the priestly rebellion, after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts.


 * I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith,preceding your Adminshipwhich I regret you and your friends displaying. As you know I asked repeatedly for you to account for your removals. You should not have joined with them, you are wrong in so helping Str1977 at this trial and everywhere, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections and voting off clezrly verifiable material. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more than POV/unsourced error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from such faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic. I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour-You have contributed to my waste of more than half a year, and against clear Wikipedia principle of verifiability. In being so against the principle and assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial. thanks (brought from user talkpage

EffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
 * EffK 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musical_Linguist"

Murder and The Mystery of Pius XI
My curious attitude, highlighted so admirably by Musical Linguist's subsequent bringing in of  formal Evidence to the case, in no small part emanates from the curious case of the state of Pius XI's neck noted by his man of the bed chamber,so to speak, a (French) Eugene Cardinal Tisserand. If the source is correct, which I do not know, it is a report of a Primary Source, the French Cardinal as a direct witness, mentions this in his memoirs, apparently. The rumours he was murdered have been included even in Wikipedia for some six months now, with the really interesting caveat "that it is is not widely believed". I may or may not be believed but, whatever about me, the Wikipedias plural allow 6 months claim that it is believed, if not widely. I consider therefore that there is quite enough suspicion already for my little suspicions to be based on rationality. I think an assumption of good faith would see that I am not without foundation in postulating that which Musical Linguist refers to. I add that the Jtdirl inclusion of the murder 'rumour' emanating from Tisserand, is also aligned in other online Tisserand comment as to the state of this pope's neck or body showing signs of bruising, or similar. I would add that the one online book review I read suggested Pius XI was murdered by Pacelli or known to this camerlengo. Cardinal Tisserant is claimed as making this accusation by Paul Williams in The Vatican Exposed. Is it relevant?. If not relevant, why is it there in our Wikipedia, albeit not accusing the Camerlengo? i doubt it is the only book, either.

I repeat the duty of care, within all this. I refer the Arbcom to the attempts made to trace me and to the posting by Musical Linguist of numbers, done very carefully and perhaps legally. I have throughout claimed she was of the cabal, She's number three, and how She had to do that, we all see. I still await her good faith reply as to my exact Sex Abuse queries, repeated at her Admin election, and where relevant. She seems to not care to answer that which She can't answer. But then that's what they all do. I have no more diffs to respond to her or anyone, except one which I use now for the Murder of the Pope, which maybe I owe to Achille Ratti and his goodness in the face of Pacelli's organised wrong. EffK 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And, whilst you are at it go ye and see the books which discuss the murder of that nice John Paul I. I didn't write them. An old saying- no one need be a genius, but a firm grasp of the obvious is available to all.

'Disruption' Attack on EffK
I have to answer here as I have no choice. Musical Linguist now feels she wants to point to my sincerity. She may feel she exceeded herself by her recent edit to do with duty of care(even for oneself). I do not choose to be more specific, and have throughout tried to avoid being specific about such duty of care.


 * I make no disruption of the article space now whatever, and I have made no disruption of an Article.


 * I have made Articles correct and appropriate.


 * I am personally attacked by the Musical Linguist edit here to Evidence of 24 January, citing my "disruption". This is a POV personal attack.


 * Is relevant discussion to subjects a disruption?

Is sourceing even lengthy Canons and morality a disruption? Is pointing out the consequences of actions a disruption?
 * Is sourceing and discussing the appropriateness of source a disruption?


 * Is it a disruption when countering concerted hagiography to propound truths, if they they are absolutely necessary to explain to Wikipedians that there is method behind papal madness of denialism? Is it not even at it's most extreme (excommunication) not explanatory of intent behind mis-information?


 * Is it disruption to source exactly why I am fought, which fight is to deny entry to Wikipedia of actively guarded critical information-is that disruption? is there no intellectual self-defence?


 * The clerical hagiography so apparent has been breached somewhat, but was rigid before I arrived. Hitler was legal, and elected and sitting pretty. A victory for him had been infused into Wikipedia. Has it been disruption to have achieved this repair?


 * Is that not worth all the space and time? Evidently not to these several users.


 * I do not have to be sincere because I am sourced and that is right in itself. I am right because I check with and follow source.


 * And from the get go, I stated at my beginning, that I expected users to understand that they themselves would be the ones forcing me to upload source. They forced my "disruption" if that is space and time.


 * They are all in error to have fought, and still fight, source. Explanation is allowable, and if the subject is convoluted, the explanation is convoluted.

If I simply said to you all here: It's all because of the 9 April,1933, is why.-None could or would understand-except Str1977, perhaps. here is a Hint: The ninth of April was a secret until the Italian press blew it. I FK  sought and brought you that secret, and still have to fight for it here in our/your Wikipedia. EffK 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)